Facts about our network neutrality proposal

Let's try and see if we can read between the lines, shall we?

Facts about our network neutrality policy proposal

Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
[Extremely well-paid flunky]

Over the past few days there’s been a lot of discussion

[Why do you hate us? We're Google!]

surrounding our announcement

[Proclamation from on high]

of a policy proposal

[back room deal]

on network neutrality

[oh, you poor naive little people with your silly little searches]

we put together with Verizon.

[Annakin and Emperor Palpatine]

On balance,

[These are the words us high-priced flunkies use to let little people know that a decision's been made, sell-outs have happened, and you should really go about your business]

we believe

[resistance is futile]

this proposal

[you will be assimilated]

represents real progress

[money money money money]

on what has become

[always been]

a very contentious issue,

[it's only the Internet. What's with all the fuss?]

and we think it could help move the network neutrality debate forward constructively.
[Google will rule!]

We don’t expect everyone to agree with every aspect of our proposal,

[These are words us high-priced flunkies use to calmly remind you why we win you lose]

but there has been a number of inaccuracies about it, and we do want to separate fact from fiction.
[These are not the droids you're looking for...]

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.
[FACT: Yes]

FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years.

[Lucky for you corporations have your best interests in mind bwhahahahahahaha]

No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet.
[until we can maximize profits and revenues via a non open Internet]

But given political realities,

[It's so time consuming to buy off this many politicians]

this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now.

[unlike all other issues in Washington]

At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic.
[and you know how badly that's held us back]

With that in mind, we decided to partner with a major broadband provider on the best policy solution we could devise together.

[Wait. What? I can't say this. Shit, there's no one out there dumb enough to believe Google and Verizon got together to benefit anyone but ourselves. Go back and rewrite this sentence.]

We’re not saying this solution is perfect,

[Again, these are words high-priced flunkies say to let you know why we win you lose. Do I really need to go over this again?]

but we believe that a proposal that locks in

[legally protects us, fucks over all future start-ups]

key enforceable protections for consumers is preferable to no protection at all.
[Of course, even I can't expect you to believe that Google and Verizon have teamed up to protect consumers. Too funny.]

MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.
[In fact, it's a dead end]

 

FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.
[And when we say things like "Internet itself" we mean a sort of backwater Internet, not the one where we send YouTube and Google TV to the front of the line over a new Internet]

 
Here are some of the tangible benefits

[Money money money money]

in our joint legislative proposal:

[and by "joint" we mean two giant money-grubbing behemoths and by "legislative proposal" we mean two giant money-grubbing behemoths get to go to the front of the line in our democracy]

• Newly enforceable FCC standards
• Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
• Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
• Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
• Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
• Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors

[I'm not sure we're saying 'wireline' enough here. Make sure we keep saying wireline so these dum dums maybe forget that the entire future of our company and the Internet is wireless]

Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward

[and why wouldn't they -- this is all about your best interests, right. Damn -- I said that with a straight face. That, boys and girls, is why I make the big money.]

– another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.
[I'd like to welcome the five families to this meeting...]

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.
[FACT: you can't eliminate something that doesn't exist. This proposal therefore is designed to create something for our benefit...]

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services.

[But then we ran the numbers and realized the really really big money is in wireless, so fuck our past.]

However, in the spirit of compromise,

[In our endless desire for even more money...]

we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.
[God damn but that's the best line I've ever written! I mean, didn't we just watch a million barrels of oil flow into the Gulf under the watchful eye of Congress. God damn, that's a good one. Yeah, we're so caring because we want a market free from regulation. Son of a bitch, Richard, but you are special.]

Why?

[Fuck you]

First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.

[We can't dominate it if the government rushes in to make sure even puny start-ups have the same acess as Google now, can we?]

 

Second, because wireless networks employ airwaves, rather than wires, and share constrained capacity among many users, these carriers need to manage their networks more actively.

[At Google, we realize you're not as smart as us. Therefore we try and make this simple for you to understand. Just leave the details to us.]

Third, network and device openness is now beginning to take off as a significant business model in this space.
[This doesn't really mean anything but us high priced flunkies have discovered that if we continue to talk rationally we sort of put you into a stupor where your brain stops working which makes it easier for us to decieve you of our real intentions]

 
In our proposal, we agreed that the best first step is for wireless providers to be fully transparent with users about how network traffic is managed to avoid congestion, or prioritized for certain applications and content.

[Google may have now embraced a non net neutral Internet but if any piss ant ISP tries to put their shit in front of ours we will bring down a A-team of high priced flunkies on their sorry ass]

Our proposal also asks the Federal government to monitor and report regularly on the state of the wireless broadband market.

[And if they do a really good job, wink wink, we'll give them high priced flunky jobs at Google]

Importantly, Congress would always have the ability to step in and impose new safeguards on wireless broadband providers to protect consumers’ interests.
[How wonderful of Google to bestow rights unto Congress that Congress has always had.]

 
It’s also important to keep in mind that the future of wireless broadband increasingly will be found in the advanced, 4th generation (4G) networks now being constructed.

[Again, just more talking. That whole stupor thing.]

Verizon will begin rolling out its 4G network this fall under openness license conditions that Google helped persuade the FCC to adopt.

[It was funny how those peon bureaucrats had no clue what we were doing. You should have seen them jump whenever we said we were with Google.]

Clearwire is already providing 4G service in some markets, operating under a unique wholesale/openness business model. So consumers across the country are beginning to experience open Internet wireless platforms, which we hope will be enhanced and encouraged by our transparency proposal.
[Stupor]

 

MYTH: This proposal will allow broadband providers to “cannibalize” the public Internet.
[FACT: This proposal will allow broadband providers to more easily craft a premium-label expensive high-barrier to entry Internet and leave the public Internet open to, well, the public. You know the kind of people I mean.]

 
FACT: Another aspect of the joint proposal would allow broadband providers to offer certain specialized services to customers, services which are not part of the Internet.

[Uh, this is just verification of what was stated above.]

So, for example, broadband providers could offer a special gaming channel, or a more secure banking service, or a home health monitoring capability – so long as such offerings are separate and apart from the public Internet.

[Do I really need to spell this out for you dum dums? The "public Internet" is the poor people's Internet. All these cool new innovative services, the kind that could make a whole new batch of Googles super rich, will be available only to those people and those busineses that can afford the high cost of entry. Of course it's not open. Of course it stifles competition. We're a god damn multi-billion-dollar public company for Christ's sake. What, you think we fucking do this for you? Fuck how stupid do you got to be?]

Some broadband providers already offer these types of services today. The chief challenge is to let consumers benefit from these non-Internet services, without allowing them to impede on the Internet itself.
[Which won't really be a problem given that we're making sure no one can touch our wireless Internet, you know, the future, and we're going to be using all our fiber to create a premium Internet.]

 
We have a number of key protections in the proposal to protect the public Internet:

• First, the broadband provider must fully comply with the consumer protection and nondiscrimination standards governing its Internet access service before it could pursue any of these other online service opportunities.

• Second, these services must be “distinguishable in purpose and scope” from Internet access, so that they cannot over time supplant the best effort Internet.

• Third, the FCC retains its full capacity to monitor these various service offerings, and to intervene where necessary to ensure that robust, unfettered broadband capacity is allocated to Internet access.

[Got that? The landline Internet's not going away. It's just gonna be consigned to a digital backwater is all. No big deal, right?]

So we believe there would be more than adequate tools in place to help guard against the “cannibalization” of the public Internet.

MYTH: Google is working with Verizon on this because of Android.
[FACT: Google is working with Verizon because the future is wireless and we want to own it.]

 
FACT: This is a policy proposal – not a business deal.

[Don't you little people understand how these things work?]

Of course, Google has a close business relationship with Verizon, but ultimately this proposal has nothing to do with Android.

[It's all about the Benjamins]

Folks certainly should not be surprised by the announcement of this proposal, given our prior public policy work with Verizon on network neutrality, going back to our October 2009 blog post, our January 2010 joint FCC filing, and our April 2010 op-ed.
[After all, we're a giant publicly traded company that acts in our best interests always and in all things. Could you really be surprised by any of this?]

 
MYTH: Two corporations are legislating the future of the Internet.

FACT: Our two companies are proposing a legislative framework to the Congress for its consideration. We hope all stakeholders will weigh in and help shape the framework to move us all forward. We’re not so presumptuous to think that any two businesses could – or should – decide the future of this issue. We’re simply trying to offer a proposal to help resolve a debate which has largely stagnated after five years.
[Oh. You really believe you have an equal say? Like us. Oh, that's so precious.]

 

It’s up to Congress, the FCC, other policymakers – and the American public – to take it from here. Whether you favor our proposal or not, we urge you to take your views directly to your Senators and Representatives in Washington.
[This is a democracy after all. Bwahahahahahahahahaha....]

 
We hope this helps address some of the inaccuracies that have appeared about our proposal. We’ll provide updates as the situation continues to develop.

[Fuck you]

[And now, a brief film from our cohorts at Verizon entitled, uh, Rule the Air. He he.]

 

[See also: Thoughts on Flash]